People went “first” to Europe, then after a long period ended up in the East-Asia.
The longer people migrated- the greater the challenge- the greater the natural sellection. Ergo: more challenged genes making it ways to East-Asia.
Matching this theory today are the different SAT,IQ test being done (not-controversial)
where Asian-Anglo/saxian-African place in said order.
Thoughts?
Political correctnes because of correctness is not interesting… Much more interesting dwelling in facts
I can’t say as I’ve heard this and it comes off as racist. Not that I don’t think the question is one of genuine curiosity, I’m just warning of what may come.
There is a theory in biology that the further a group gets from its point of origin, the less variety there will be, and the closer to the point of origin, the more varied the varieties. I heard this in a college biology course that illustrated this with a few examples, such as citrus, which originated in the Indian sub-continent. India has an enormous variety of different citrus species.
I think you’ll need to post some reputable cites for this. I can see a lot of potential problems with the theory.
For example, what evidence is there that traveling elsewhere exerts any kind of evolutionary pressure on intelligence and has this been going on long enough to actually make a difference?
How are “they” measuring intelligence? IMHO, SAT scores don’t necessarily measure how smart you are, they measure how educated you are.
Surviving in harsh colder climates could have an impact over time.
Also, changes in social organisation as populations expanded may have lead to different selection pressures. Have you read ‘The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution’?
Here is a fact: it would be a much farther distance and much more difficult journey from Africa to Oceania or the Americas, given the primitive methods of travel available thousands of years ago, than it would be to East Asia and Europe.
I’ve always heard that that’s true of humans; that Africans have the greatest level of genetic variation among humans. Which still isn’t too much, humans are less genetically varied than most species I understand. A combination of passing though a genetic bottleneck, then a population explosion.
I don’t want to be insulting, but you’ve started a number of threads recently that indicate you have been dwelling in opinions instead of facts. This thread is based on obvious racist concepts and no factual basis we’ve seen. You did not deny being a racist either when responding to The Second Stone. You argue that racism has nothing to do with it, the theory is either valid, or it is not. It clearly is not even a hypothesis until you supply evidence to support the existence of phenomena you are trying to explain.
I will be presumptious and ask for your motivations. If it is simply curiousity, there seems to be a selective nature to it.
There simply is not the kind of testing necessary to determine cross-cultural IQ and then correct for other possible causes. It is going to devolve into generalizations. I’m not saying that this isn’t a potentially interesting line of inquiry from a scientific point of view, but the hypothesis is essentially that people further from Africa in their ethnic origin are going to have higher IQ scores. Well, IQ tests are designed by people far from Africa in their ethnic origin to measure educational skills for local cultures.
Are some people smarter based on geographical origin of ethnicity? Hard to say. However, we can say this, anthropologists have used brain case size in human ancestors to ballpark intellectual capacity, and the extinct Neanderthals had much larger brain cases than modern Homo sapiens. Why is that?
In relation to neanderthals, the shape of their larynx may have reduced their potential for communication. Humans may have picked up useful alleles from them nonetheless.
This is incorrect. The designers of the SAT (psychologists at College Board) deliberately construct the test questions so that amount of education doesn’t matter. They deliberately design the test so that it is “uncoachable.” In many ways, the SAT test is a proxy for IQ tests. IQ tests are also “uncoachable.”
Whether the SAT successfully tests for “smarts” (whatever that means) is up for debate but it definitely does not test for level of education.
It may not test for specific content for your education, but IQ is positively correlated with years of education, so if its a proxy for IQ part of what it is measuring is education.
Humans headed toward Asia before they populated Europe.
The people who populated Europe did not then move toward Asia, but tended to settle in Europe, (with a later backflow of a certain number of Asians migrating back into Europe).
If your thesis was correct, then the most brilliant group of humans should be South Americans and Pacific Islanders, neither of which group tends to be discussed much in the literature of intelligence measuring.
(The whole Asians/Europeans/Africans ranking of intelligence is actually very suspect–and “Anglo-Saxons” is hardly an equivalent term for Europeans.)
Basically, you have some sort of garbled version of a one unclear claim mixed with some historical ignorance. Without some genuine facts, this is a pointless exercise.